Content
X

Create Account

Or log in with Facebook

X

Log in

Or log in with Facebook

Packer Transplants Live with Katie Nolan

By Category

Packer Transplants Live with Katie Nolan

Episode 125

We talk with Katie Nolan about the upcoming game against the Patriots

Listen in...

Streaming audio - Press play

Download Versions: Download Audio Podcast

Free Subscription Option

NFL Categories: 
  • Like Like
  • 1 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (34) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

DraftHobbyist's picture

Why would a commissioner need to see the evidence? To assess what happen. Simply hitting someone, even a woman, is not illegal or even unjustifiable in some instances, such as when a person is attacked.

I'm all for talking about domestic violence, but I'm not for pretending like men only see women as sex objects when people say things like men just see women as someone with boobs.

The real irony here is that this is a sport of violence. This is a sport where men are encouraged to maim themselves, kill themselves, etc. And this action is rewarded by society with genuine interest from women and money. But we don't talk about issues about men. Why? Because we don't value men's lives as much as women's lives.

Lets say there is a fire and 2 people (1 man and 1 woman) can be rescued. A firefighter goes in and can only save one. Who does the firefigher save? It's almost always the woman. If you watch military rescue missions where people who don't get out are likely to be slaughtered, you will see men pushed away so that women and children can be saved instead. Why? Because men's lives aren't valued.

And we don't even have to get away from domestic violence in our society to see inequalities against men. Study after study shows that men are abused in relationships at about the same rate as women. Some studies even show that men can injured more often, and in domestic violence where only one person is violent, women are generally the perpetrators of that violence. The police also have policies of arresting the male in domestic abuse calls when they are unclear who is at fault as well. But we don't talk about these things.

We don't talk about how more men are homeless and yet more women are sheltered. We don't talk about how men's lives are devalued by taking the most risky jobs and being forced to register for the military, which women are not forced to do. We don't talk about how females graduate high school at a rate of about 8% higher rate than males, or that enrollment in college the following fall semester is around 10% higher for females than males, and we don't even talk about how men are actually reaching the point of graduating less than previously had.

We don't talk about how the NFL pushes breast cancer awareness month, which is colored pink for women, over other cancers that kill many more people. We don't talk about how men are actually killed from breast cancer at a higher rate than women per instance of breast cancer. We don't talk about how much less money is put towards cancers that kill men than cancers that kill women. We don't talk about how men are denied free mammograms that women are offered based on their gender. We don't talk about how the Affordable Care Act covers birth control for women, but not birth control for men. Why don't we talk about these things? Because our society does not value the life of men as much as the life of women.

Go into a chat or forum online and try talking about inequalities against men. You will be labeled an MRA, seen as extremist, and vilified. So do women face issues? Yes. Do men face issues? Yes. When one gender faces inequality both genders face inequality. When a woman gets abused, that's a father's daughter, a brother's sister. When a man gets abused, that's a mother's son, a sister's brother. It's time we stop making these issues about one gender group or the other. It's time we create real dialogue about these issues. It's time we stop vilifying men by saying untrue things like men only see women as a person with boobs. THAT IS WRONG. I STAND AGAINST IT. YOU SHOULD TO.

I'll leave you with a statistic: Do you know what demographic makes up 50% of the victims trafficked in the USA for the purpose of sexual exploitation? Boys. Not males, no no. Boys alone.

DraftHobbyist's picture

What exactly did you not understand about my statement?

MarkinMadison's picture

Some of the things you are saying I agree with. A lot of this post just goes way overboard.

(1) I just don't know if some of the things you say are factually accurate. The 50% statistic cited for boys in sex trafficking, for example. I attended the (Wisconsin) Attorney General's Summit exploring sex trafficking in 2012 (?), and I attempted to find stats to support your statement. I failed to find any, and the claim doesn't strike me as being correct based upon what I know. I'm no expert in the field, but I'm not uneducated either.

(2) The part about football players being in a sport where they are encouraged to maim and kill themselves is flat-out ridiculous. Yes, a few deaths have happened. But to say that players are ENCOURAGED kill themselves? Really? You got tape of Mike McCarthy telling Richard Rodgers to get in there and break his neck for the team?

(3) The part about breast cancer $$$ is right, but it also lacks any context at all, historical or otherwise.

DraftHobbyist's picture

1) I've done quite a bit or research on this stuff. You really have to dig deep for some of the statistics, which in itself shows the inequalities men face. Many statistics within the government are geared towards finding inequalities against women, especially because that is what is politically beneficial. Also, the boys trafficking stat I gave was a national statistic, not a state one. Most people actually don't believe statistics of inequality against men when they first hear them. Everything we are taught is how females are discriminated against and males are the perpetrators. People don't believe that going all the way back to 1994 more women were graduating high school than me, and the difference has only grown over the last decade. You seem like a fair, intelligent person, and I think if you do some research on this stuff you will find out that I'm right. Some of my information comes from the Pew Poll Research Center, some from the BJS, and some comes from other sources.

2) You are thinking WAY to directly. I'm not saying that MM is out there telling people to break their necks. I'm saying that NFL players get paid a lot of money, and attract a lot of women, for being in the sport, and the sport itself is very dangerous.

This goes much deeper than even the NFL and it's it would be tough to explain it all here, but men's lives are valued as less than women's lives in society. In fact, women tend to be attracted to men who take risks.

Just look at sexual harassment. If a man asks a woman out at work, he risks losing his career or even being sued. If she's interested, it's usually no big deal. If she's not, it's sexual harassment. Society expects men to take the direct approach of asking out women (if men don't ask women out their chance of finding a mate lowers dramatically), however, women can show interest in men without punishment. Women are taught to do more subtle things such bending over in front of him, biting their lip, flipping hair, etc. Women are actually discouraged from taking a direct approach that would get them in trouble in court or at work more easily.

This kind of point can get very deep and go for a long time, so I'll stop there, but I think you can tell where I'm going with this. I'm not sure about Aaron, though, because he seems more interested in finding Youtube videos to insult others instead of actually thinking about the issues.

3) Would you like to add some context to how health care that effects men tends to develop at a much slower rate, which is leading to women living around 7 years longer than men give or take a year or two?

I really do appreciate your intellectually honest approach, though. Most people respond to someone with an argument like mine with trying to discredit, silence, or embarrass me without ever taking on the issues much like Aaron did. He's perfectly willing to have a guest talk politics on the show, but he's not willing to hear the other side.

MarkinMadison's picture

1) I'm not talking about state statistics. I do not think your claim that 50% of those sexually trafficked is credible. Please provide source data.

2) Your claim about men being in a sport where they are encouraged to "maim and kill themselves" is very sensational. I wouldn't make that argument.

3) The usual comparison for breast cancer is prostate cancer, because only men get it. Relative to mortality rates, breast cancer is not over-funded. When you factor in that breast cancer hits women in the prime of their lives, on average, v. prostate cancer, which hits men towards the end of their lives, on average, you can see where it is reasonable that breast cancer gets much more attention than prostate cancer.

Also, historically, all medical research has a strong male bias. This was true both in terms of private sector selection of diseases to target, as well as the set of of testing protocols, which have normally used men as test subjects, thereby failing to fully assess whether there are differential impacts in treatment success and side effects. Breast cancer was the exception, the hammer that broke the glass ceiling.

DraftHobbyist's picture

1) https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/225083.pdf
Do you want to know why you didn't know about the sex trafficking issue of boys? Because society doesn't care to find out. In fact, most research done on the issue looks specifically for only women and girls. Studies completely neglect males, and it's because society cares less about the lives of males than the lives of females. Can you think of any more obvious of an inequality against males than to base most research of things like sex trafficking on females and completely omit males? And sex trafficking is not the only time this done.

2) First, lets establish that football does maim and kill many men. Some die directly on the field or in practice, but most die post-football from health conditions created from playing football.

Once we have that established, we realize that the objection really comes down to the encouragement aspect. I will attempt to establish encouragement to play football in America.

The #1 sport in the USA is football. I think you'll agree with that. NFL players get a ton of fame, a ton of money, and they will undoubtedly get attention from women. These are things, especially money and women, that are cherished in society. Who doesn't want to find a lifelong partner? Who doesn't want lots of money? And many people want the fame that goes with it as well.

In fact, we can even go as far to say that playing football creates power. Even college players are idolized by society, and we consistently see college and NFL players getting away with crimes with either no or very light punishments they seemingly have committed, and in many instances, admitted.

What do we teach boys is important in society? I would argue that we teach them providing for the family is important. The NFL is a great way to provide for a family financially. Also, many studies have shown that women are interested in men who can provide for their family. Stability is a key factor in finding a mate for most women. (Again, this is common knowledge that most people accept in society, so if you disagree with something please let me know.)

When we factor all of these things together, we can see that men achieve what society teaches boys is important by playing in the NFL. Much of it can even be achieved by simply playing college football.

3) Your objections are noted about prostate cancer, but I do not think they counter what I've said. For instance, men die from breast cancer at a higher rate than women per instance of breast cancer, yet breast cancer is colored pink, free mammograms are denied to men that are given to women because of gender, and women are specifically targeted for breast cancer awareness while men are often ignored. You have not dealt with this issue within breast cancer itself yet.

I also agree that males were often used as test subjects. You know why? Because men's lives matter less to society than women's lives. It's not acceptable for society to allow women to die from taking experimental drugs, so we test those on men, who are seen as acceptable to die from taking experimental drugs. All too often is an obligation or inequality against a male flipped into being a male-dominates-society argument.

I will say this: More men die to cancer than women, yet the cancer society, especially the NFL, raises the most awareness on is breast cancer, and most of that awareness is geared towards women even though men are currently dying form breast cancer at higher rates than women.

dullgeek's picture

There's a hard reality that might be helpful for you. If half of the population of males died overnight, humanity would still be able to fully populate the next generation of humans. If half of the population of females died overnight, the next generation of humanity would be in significant trouble.

Put simply: women are much more biologically important to the survival of our species than men. Men are expendable. This is why men take on all the riskier jobs. This is why men are more often sent to war than women. This is why "women and children" are historically the first to get seats on life boats. The best way for humanity to survive is if women are guarded more preciously than men. This will result in all sorts of "inequalities" between men and women. This should only be alarming if you're of the mis-guided belief that men and women are the same. Biologically they're not, and this has social consequences.

This isn't all bad. There are certain advantages that come for men from this arrangement. Roy Baumeister gave a talk on this subject that subsequently became a book called "Is There Anything Good About Men?". Google it. The book is available from amazon and the transcript of the talk is pretty easy to find. Both are enlightening.

The good news is that human males are far less expendable than the male preying mantis. The latter is so expendable that the females eat the males after mating. So, silver linings, dude. It could be worse.

DraftHobbyist's picture

Your argument would be more valid if our species was in risk of dying off. It's not. If anything, over-population is a bigger risk than not being able to make enough babies. So by your logic, shouldn't things be reversed? When I hear people argue that men are more expendable I feel it only goes to show my point.

DraftHobbyist's picture

I don't agree with chalking everything up to nature (although I'm fine with that being a part of the discussion), but more importantly, I would like to address what you said about men being better equipped to save themselves. Many times, this is not the case. There were Iraqi's being saved by helicopter earlier this year because ISIL (aka ISIS) was approaching them and they would be slaughtered or enslaved. In the videos you could see men being pushed away so that women were taken on board, yet these men were completely helpless from being slaughtered by ISIL. There are sinking ships as well, where women tend to be saved first, even though men will certainly die if they are not saved. Simply put, men's lives mean less to our society. There is a natural instinct aspect to it, but that's not the complete picture.

Also, CheeseheadTV decided to turn this political when they invited a guest to make political statements. I simply responded to those statements.

DraftHobbyist's picture

Part of my point is that sometimes we have to rise above our primal natural instincts, so even if what you say is true, it's not okay just to accept it as how society needs to run. Men in society should not be valued less than women. Do you really disagree with that statement?

On another note, I think what your statement does is really turn women and men into baby making machines. Should we save the lives of people who are fertile over the lives of people are infertile? Of course not. After all, we tend to save the elderly before the young even though many of them cannot have babies anymore.

packeraaron's picture

"CheeseheadTV decided to turn this political when they invited a guest to make political statements. "

CheeseheadTV invited a guest who had a great point to make that, while completely missing it, you have helped prove. So, um, thanks.

DraftHobbyist's picture

You make these vague statements that sound bad in your attempt to continue to vilify me (again, this is a very common tactic in society so it's not just you), and what I've asked you before is what don't you understand about my position? Here, I'm asking how I helped prove her point? You are saying very negative things to me with absolutely no substance to your comments, while my comments were loaded with substance.

Samson's picture

You'll never convince packeraaron that maybe, just maybe, there is more to the discussion. ---- You see, when you attack a 'vaunted guest' of CHTV, you are attacking packeraaron himself.

CHTV has always been this way. Their "house opinion" rarely allows in-depth analysis of anything, even football.

jeremyjjbrown's picture

"men just see women as someone with boobs."

She said "A person who happens to have breasts" should be welcome to join the conversation. Which is very different from your ridiculous rant, and a whole lot more intelligent.

DraftHobbyist's picture

I didn't quote her, that much was obvious. I paraphrased it, but if you want to give the exact quote that's fine. Why do you think she brought up breasts? It was a shot at how men sexualize women. I'm sorry you can't see that.

jeremyjjbrown's picture

She not expressing a problem with men sexualizing women. She's expressing a problem with women not being welcome to take part in the conversation around domestic violence by NFL players.

DraftHobbyist's picture

I understand that, but who is she blaming? She's blaming men in positions of power, and by bringing up the breasts comment she's implying that men are sexualizing women and not seeing them for their intelligence. This is clear as day.

Also, maybe I should respond more directly to at least one of her points. First, there are more male football fans than female football fans. That is a fact. Also, I wouldn't argue that someone had to be in football in order to talk about it, but playing in the NFL is relevant, and that is something no woman has done, because football is unique in that there is no female pro equivalent. This isn't some trivial point. It makes perfect sense for someone like Ross Tucker to be an analyst. He's very qualified for the job. Are there actually more qualified women applying for the job than people like Michael Strahan, Bill Cowher, Boomer Esiason, Ross Tucker, etc.?

Having said that, there are women at some levels of the NFL such as the executive level. When these women retire maybe they will be interested in joining the media. I will point out that women do exist in the media in positions that are stronger than support positions. Stephania Bell is a medical expert, and I wouldn't trivialize her job as not being as important. If you look around in other sports that women do play on a regular basis, women are in many of the "important" positions.

My complaint is what Nolan is really asking for is to have less qualified women taking jobs over more qualified men. That's not the answer. The answer is to fight to get women into football if they want to play, to fight for women's interest in football to become stronger as a fan (historically there is no doubt that men, in general, are more interested in watching football), coaching, scouting, etc. If we do these things we will have more qualified women, and we will likely even have women in the NFL some day. Also, giving female NFL executives and scouts that currently do exist time to get through their career and then go to the media if they want to will help the situation.

By the way, I find it extremely interesting that she cited examples of men who are not analysts. Chris Berman is not an analyst. So please, give me examples of women that are more qualified to be analysts than people like Bill Cowher, Ross Tucker, Michael Strahan, Howie Long, Boomer Esiason, etc.

jeremyjjbrown's picture

"So please, give me examples of women that are more qualified to be analysts than people like Bill Cowher, Ross Tucker, Michael Strahan, Howie Long, Boomer Esiason, etc."

How would we know who they might be?

DraftHobbyist's picture

By looking around society to find women that are more qualified then those currently working in the business. My point is that men aren't hired right now because they are men, they are hired right now because they are most qualified for the job. It does harm to say that we should hire less qualified women over more qualified men because it distracts us from the real problem. My stance is to encourage women to become more qualified. We see women getting the so called important jobs in other sports that women play more. Coincidence? I think not.

jeremyjjbrown's picture

I don't think your encouragement is enough. They need real opportunities to become well qualified.

DraftHobbyist's picture

What do you think I'm talking about? I'm talking educating and training women, trying to build interest among women, etc. Do you have any idea what would happen if women started getting hired as analysts over more qualified men? It would make women look less intelligent on football, and it would reinforce some negative stereotypes that are out there. You've gone to the point of saying that a less qualified woman should be hired over a more qualified man, and I'm saying the more qualified person should be hired. Who's position is more fair? Who's position is more extreme?

MarkinMadison's picture

Enjoyed you guys having Katie Nolan on last night. To the guys in the chat room who were offended by her, chill. Did you get anything different from your Vikings friends when Farve was playing for them? Fun stuff.

maxximus's picture

I enjoyed Katie, but I wish they would've spoke with her more about details of the upcoming game, like they do with most guests. When they were asking about how GB should try to stop Gronk and the generalized response "you can't" is fine for people just hanging out and having fun, but I was expecting an actual discussion on it. Just not what i was used to from PT. Maybe if they're going to have other fans on as guests, and just as fans not for Xs & Os type talk or as reporters, maybe that can be a different show on CHTV from time to time.

SpaceManatee's picture

"Why would a commissioner need to see the evidence? To assess what happen. Simply hitting someone, even a woman, is not illegal or even unjustifiable in some instances, such as when a person is attacked."

It is illegal. It's called assault and it would be illegal if it were a man too.

"The real irony here is that this is a sport of violence. This is a sport where men are encouraged to maim themselves, kill themselves, etc. And this action is rewarded by society with genuine interest from women and money. But we don't talk about issues about men. Why? Because we don't value men's lives as much as women's lives."

1. Nobody in football is encouraged to kill themselves. Why do you think the Saints were dealt with so harshly? Why do you think there are rules against helmet-to-helmet and other injury causing hits? 2. Janay Rice was blamed by several people for bringing on Ray Rice's violence herself.

"And we don't even have to get away from domestic violence in our society to see inequalities against men. Study after study shows that men are abused in relationships at about the same rate as women."

Care to share these "studies"?

"Some studies even show that men can injured more often, and in domestic violence where only one person is violent, women are generally the perpetrators of that violence. The police also have policies of arresting the male in domestic abuse calls when they are unclear who is at fault as well. But we don't talk about these things."

Again, please share your studies.

"We don't talk about how the NFL pushes breast cancer awareness month, which is colored pink for women, over other cancers that kill many more people. We don't talk about how men are actually killed from breast cancer at a higher rate than women per instance of breast cancer. We don't talk about how much less money is put towards cancers that kill men than cancers that kill women. We don't talk about how men are denied free mammograms that women are offered based on their gender. We don't talk about how the Affordable Care Act covers birth control for women, but not birth control for men. Why don't we talk about these things? Because our society does not value the life of men as much as the life of women."

Again, facts are not facts without proof. Also, free birth control. You mean condoms? Go over to Planned Parenthood and grab yourself a handful. You wanna talk about inequality, ask yourself why "pulling out" is a legitimate male form of birth control while women have several hormonal or device options that cost money and are often challenged by religious groups.

"Go into a chat or forum online and try talking about inequalities against men. You will be labeled an MRA, seen as extremist, and vilified. So do women face issues? Yes. Do men face issues? Yes. When one gender faces inequality both genders face inequality. When a woman gets abused, that's a father's daughter, a brother's sister. When a man gets abused, that's a mother's son, a sister's brother. It's time we stop making these issues about one gender group or the other. It's time we create real dialogue about these issues. It's time we stop vilifying men by saying untrue things like men only see women as a person with boobs. THAT IS WRONG. I STAND AGAINST IT. YOU SHOULD TO."

There is nothing wrong with bringing up male inequality issues unless you're trying to minimize the inequality of others in the process.

DraftHobbyist's picture

-Self-defense is called assault? That's a new one.
-About men being rewarded for harming themselves in society, I've addressed this previously. I'm not here to talk about whether Ray Rice was right or wrong, because I'm here to talk more generally about the issues, so don't take that comment as me giving a pass to Ray Rice.
-Honestly, do you really care about the studies? I doubt it. But in case you actually care, I'll give you one of many: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/
-I notice how you are asking for proof (which I gave), but you did not ask Nolan for her proof. Holding one side to a higher standard than another standard is a fallacy.
-On the health issue, just look up information on the ACA and you will see that I'm right. It's more than just condoms. It's also procedures like vasectomies. As for your pulling out argument, that just tells me you are not actually interested in a real discussion about the issues.
-Ironic, because that's exactly what the modern feminist movement (not to be confused with the original and very noble original feminist movement that helped women gain the right to vote among other things) has done. It has minimized the issues of men, silenced much of the talk about inequalities against men, and vilified the few who speak out.

SpaceManatee's picture

"-Self-defense is called assault? That's a new one."

I had assumed we were talking about Ray Rice. Of course, there is self-defense.

"-Honestly, do you really care about the studies? I doubt it. But in case you actually care, I'll give you one of many: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/"

No need for condescension. Of course, I would want factual proof. While your study may show that women are as likely to be the aggressor, they also failed to collect data on severity, verbal or emotional abuse, and sexual abuse, all of them being factors that sway towards the male side of things.

"-I notice how you are asking for proof (which I gave), but you did not ask Nolan for her proof. Holding one side to a higher standard than another standard is a fallacy."

I'm not exactly communicating with her, am I? Also, I'm more than willing to look at both sides. My whole problem with your argument isn't the idea that males aren't abused in society and that there aren't inequalities that put men at a disadvantage. For example, male rape (Prison, especially) is often the subject of jokes even in kids TV shows. It's almost as though people think it's somehow okay if a man is raped. I find it appalling, but I don't need to minimalize the effect of rape on women in order to make men somehow seem like bigger victims.

"-On the health issue, just look up information on the ACA and you will see that I'm right."

Burden of proof, etc. You look it up.

" It's more than just condoms. It's also procedures like vasectomies. As for your pulling out argument, that just tells me you are not actually interested in a real discussion about the issues."

It's condoms, abstinence, withdrawal (pulling out), and vasectomies. Also, pulling out is listed as a form of birth control by Planned Parenthood, so I am interested in a real conversation. Also, most insurance providers will cover a vasectomy. Meanwhile, there are twelve kinds of birth control for women.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-info/birth-control
http://www.vasectomy.com/vasectomy/faq/affordability-how-much-does-a-vas...

"-Ironic, because that's exactly what the modern feminist movement (not to be confused with the original and very noble original feminist movement that helped women gain the right to vote among other things) has done. It has minimized the issues of men, silenced much of the talk about inequalities against men, and vilified the few who speak out."

You're mistaking real feminists with Gawker feminists and the idea of a feminist that a MRA SubReddit or Fox News would give you. Real feminists are not anti-men or pushing to make some kind of inequality. They are simply trying to level the playing field with men.

DraftHobbyist's picture

"I had assumed we were talking about Ray Rice. Of course, there is self-defense."
-And how do we decide if Ray Rice is guilty of domestic violence or if he was acting in self-defense if we don't wait for the evidence? I honestly don't see how it can be a bad thing to judge the evidence, and how it can be a good thing to make hasty decisions without evidence.

"No need for condescension. Of course, I would want factual proof. While your study may show that women are as likely to be the aggressor, they also failed to collect data on severity, verbal or emotional abuse, and sexual abuse, all of them being factors that sway towards the male side of things."
-You're shifting the discussion. I wasn't talking about severity of abuse, I was talking about the amount of abuse. Of course this study was not meant to be an all-encompassing study of all aspects of domestic violence. The point was that in study after study, we see results like this where women are instigators of domestic violence more often than men. Do you see how as soon as the evidence presented itself that men are victims of domestic violence, you shifted the discussion and belittled the importance of the domestic violence against men? That's a sign, again, that in society we value the lives of men less than the lives of women and that's a problem.

"I find it appalling, but I don't need to minimalize the effect of rape on women in order to make men somehow seem like bigger victims."
-How did I do this? My point from the beginning, was that Nolan was minimizing and ignoring relevant male issues that lead to these actions. You see, I'm actually trying to understand the issue and get to the fundamental part of the problem in order to fix it. Why? Because I care about both men and women, and if we solve the problem of teaching boys to devalue their own lives, and if we solve the problem of teaching girls to devalue the lives of boys, then we will end up with less violent men that abuse women less. You see how all of these issues are interconnected and just blaming one gender for the issue is unfair?

"Burden of proof, etc. You look it up."
-I did look up information on the ACA to see how it gives specific coverage to women while ignoring men on the same issues. That's how I know about the inequalities. People choose not to believe me, though, even when I present the examples.

"It's condoms, abstinence, withdrawal (pulling out), and vasectomies. Also, pulling out is listed as a form of birth control by Planned Parenthood, so I am interested in a real conversation. Also, most insurance providers will cover a vasectomy. Meanwhile, there are twelve kinds of birth control for women."
-Planned Parenthood is not the ACA. I'm not sure why you are equating the two. As for PP, notice how you said most, not all.

"You're mistaking real feminists with Gawker feminists and the idea of a feminist that a MRA SubReddit or Fox News would give you. Real feminists are not anti-men or pushing to make some kind of inequality. They are simply trying to level the playing field with men."
-I'm not mistaking anything. Let me ask you something: Where does the word feminism come from? From the word feminine maybe? Feminism, by definition, is a movement for females. Most people would call Barbara Boxer a real feminist, not a Gawker feminist, and yet she's the one that pushed for specific things for women while ignoring men's rights on the same issue. Time after time in the law we see specific things for females instead of being gender-neutral, so do not pretend like what I'm saying is fringe. It's so mainstream it's getting into the law.

What the current MRM is attempting to do is to create a new feminist movement to gain equality in some areas that males are do not have equality in. It is not attempting to put down the rights of females or to have extra rights over females, and to suggest otherwise is faulty, an attempt to silence men and boys who feel mistreated, intellectually dishonest, and sexist.

EDIT: By the way, the reason I responded with a hint of condescending tone is because you said, "Care to share these "studies"?" Putting studies in quotes was a way of being condescending yourself. Interesting that you talk to me with a condescending tone and then complain when I respond in the same condescending tone.

Jamie's picture

Back to the show -- damn that was a clusterfrick!

At various points Katie was either somewhere else, or wishing she was...mainly due to the threat of Corey dry humping her leg. Toward the end, Nagler even looked like he wished he'd have kept that anus bleaching appt.

FITZCORE1252's picture

Katie, you suck.

GPG

Erik1.Slaby's picture

Fantastic show! Katie Nolan was a fricking awesome guest to have on the show! Doesn't matter that she is a Patriots fan. I have to agree with her position on women in regards to the NFL and I do believe that they should have a seat at the table. In fact, I believe back in 2006 when the NFL needed a new commissioner, they asked Condoleezza Rice about taking the job. She declined though because she was Secretary of State at the time.

Also, I have to agree with Katie, Aaron and Corey that it is super weird that a guy wouldn't date a girl because she doesn't like sports. When I talk sports to some of my female friends and mom and sisters, they tend to just tune me out and not pay attention. I do have a few female friends who love sports as much as I do and it's awesome to be able to talk to them about sports. My dream girlfriend would definitely have to love sports.

CamBigelow's picture

This was the worst episode of Packers Transplants ever. Never heard the guys giggle so much in my life.

Samson's picture

It was embarrassing.

4thand1's picture

Took me 2 days to read all the posts.

Log in to comment, upload your game day photos and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.

Or log in with Facebook

 
 
 

Quote

"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "
"I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious."
"The Bears still suck!"